There are 32074 comments on the
CNN
story from Oct 12, 2011, titled Who says Mormons aren't Christians?.
In it, CNN reports that:

Editor's note: Dean Obeidallah is an award-winning comedian who has appeared on TV shows such as Comedy Central's "Axis of Evil" special, ABC's "The View," CNN's "What the Week" and HLN's "The Joy Behar Show." He is executive producer of the annual New York Arab-American Comedy Festival and the Amman Stand Up Comedy Festival.

<quoted text>You realize your experience mirrored those two thousand years ago? People of the Jewish faith in their homes, some were receiving people that were going to minister to them and like you, when they found out they were there to convince them to believe in a man they called the living prophet of God, Jesus of Nazareth, they like you rejected their message?Can you imagine living when God walked this earth, living in the same area, hearing and or listening to him and deciding he was a quack and looney tunes? The Bible is filled with instances of God setting a prophet on the earth again and again that most would reject as a fraud, a wolf in sheep's clothing, would call him evil and crazy and not of God.Two thousand years later we face the same exact situation and humans are reacting the same exact way they did two thousand years ago. Be careful what and whom you reject.

Lol I rejected a doctrine who quotes a false prophet. Thanks for the history lesson, though. Good times!

<quoted text>You realize your experience mirrored those two thousand years ago? People of the Jewish faith in their homes, some were receiving people that were going to minister to them and like you, when they found out they were there to convince them to believe in a man they called the living prophet of God, Jesus of Nazareth, they like you rejected their message?Can you imagine living when God walked this earth, living in the same area, hearing and or listening to him and deciding he was a quack and looney tunes? The Bible is filled with instances of God setting a prophet on the earth again and again that most would reject as a fraud, a wolf in sheep's clothing, would call him evil and crazy and not of God.Two thousand years later we face the same exact situation and humans are reacting the same exact way they did two thousand years ago. Be careful what and whom you reject.

Also Joseph Smith is not Jesus. Hate to burst your bubble there, bub, but you're following the wrong guy.

The Lost Book of Abraham @ 6 mins - instead of being inspired by God, like the books of the Bible were, Joseph Smith got the lost scrolls from a traveling thief and con man. They were very expensive, instead of being given freely to the world, as the books of the Bible were.

@ 24-30, 35-39, 43-44 mins.- its pointed out that people are supposed to believe that a book written by Abraham was entirely lost by the Israelites and preserved by unbelieving Egyptians, embalmed in a priests catacomb (a Godless man).

Also, proof that 3 illustrations copied by Joseph Smith were copied from the Book of the Dead and were copied from illustrations of an Egyptian god, a god of the underworld, and one that Smith claimed was Abraham lecturing on astronomy(?) Really?

@45-55 - different conclusions from Mormons.(next post)

From the beginning, we see that Mormon leaders are actively involved in creating more fraudulent documents to cover up the lies told by Joseph Smith and others. Thats the problem with religions inspired by menThat means that those leaders KNOW THAT MORMONISM IS A FAKE and are deliberately scamming millions of people -- for money.

Also, when you compare the kind of person Joseph Smith was, compared to the Apostles, you have to ask why God would use an unrepentant criminal who never changed his ways, and was continuing to lie to the very end.They say the plates were returned to the angel Moroni, but we still have the Dead Sea Scrolls because true Christianity is not a false religion built on lies, that cant stand up to examination.If its not from God, it can only be inspired by Satan.(next post)

MORMONS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF GAY ACTIVISTS AND GAYS IN UGANDA..MITT ROMNEY AND THE MORMON CHURCH ARE FUNDING THIS MURDER WITH MONEY GIVEN TO THE UGANDAN GOVERNMENT AND MORMON MISSIONS IN UGANDA.THIS MURDER MUST STOP..EVERY MORMON IN AMERICA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE MURDERS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE...YOU HAVE 90 DAYS TO GET OUT OF UGANDA OR YOU WILL BE FORCED OUT OR KILLED

<quoted text>You realize your experience mirrored those two thousand years ago? People of the Jewish faith in their homes, some were receiving people that were going to minister to them and like you, when they found out they were there to convince them to believe in a man they called the living prophet of God, Jesus of Nazareth, they like you rejected their message?Can you imagine living when God walked this earth, living in the same area, hearing and or listening to him and deciding he was a quack and looney tunes?The Bible is filled with instances of God setting a prophet on the earth again and again that most would reject as a fraud, a wolf in sheep's clothing, would call him evil and crazy and not of God.Two thousand years later we face the same exact situation and humans are reacting the same exact way they did two thousand years ago. Be careful what and whom you reject.

I don't ever remember any stories of Jesus trying to marry the Apostles wives while they were preaching his gospel. Smith is no Jesus.

The Calvary nuts that keep posting that god and Jesus are the same deity need to read up on Saul / Paul when he testifies of seeing both god and Jesus side by side. Believing that god is all three of the godhead at the same time is not Christian. Go read your bible again.

They did read the Bible, and in it Jesus said those who've seen him, have seen the Father. It also says there is only one God.

<quoted text>You liar. Fricking pathetic liar. You claim you're not judging anyone? What do you call your holding living Mormons 150 years after a slaughter, as being the one's to "beg" forgiveness for an act they didn't do? And you have the audacity to crawl like a low bellied dog and blame living people for dead people's actions? How fricking insane are you?And than you state this insanity from a mind infected with the disease of insanity... " I can't extend the forgiveness that should come from those who were slaughtered. That is not my place.And there will never be forgiveness until it's asked for."Who in the living *ell expects you to forgive anyone for anything concerning a 150 year old event? Have you set yourself as a god?The dead will forgive or not forgive the dead. That is up to them to do or not to do in a different world where they exist.You're a filthy piece of garbage that I have never met the likes of in these threads. You make it seem that you speak for the dead as if you're their god and you know their thoughts.You're judgements of so many will come back to judge you when you're held accountable for your judgements of others. I feel so sickely sorrowful for your black wretched heart. How can someone so vile of spiritual filth be so convinced they are so good and wonderful, that they hold persons living responsible for the actions of dead people.Fricking unbelievable...

You are the last person to be talking about judging anything or anyone. The same for the LDS church.

<quoted text>No, I know of healthy babies being adopted by gays, and in one case a parent had been molested. I think many people are gay because of molestation and abuse. I believe that often affects families for generations, and am vehemently against using children in social experiments, not only because children pay the price, but that most parents are too stupid to learn from mistakes and change their own behaviors.

The odds are no greater that a gay couple will molest a child than a straight couple. If you are anti-abortion, pro-life, you have to be willing to let the children who were not aborted have a chance at having a family.

<quoted text>What's up Papa. See you are still stuck on Mountain Meadow Massacre huh. Well, let's pretend for a moment shall we?Even if the massacre happened exactly as you have described,Jesus offers forgiveness. Where is yours?How can you judge mine or anyone else's Christianity based on how you perceive the events to happen.not to mention I am 36 years old, what part would I have played in something that happened so very long ago.There is no doubt that there was a massacre. I just don't agree with your thoughts on the turn of events.In all honesty the only ones who really know without a doubt what happened that day are long dead.

I think what most people want is for the LDS church to take responsibility for what happened. Mormons still make excuses today blaming everything and everybody but the church. The LDS church is responsible for what happen because of what the leaders were preaching at the time. If you don't know much about the Mormon reformation of the 1850's, you should look into it.

The Catholic church has offered apologies for the Spanish inquisition, and the Southern Baptist church has offered apologies for their racists teachings in the beginning, supporting slavery. But the Mormon church won't take responsibility for anything.

<quoted text>Lol I rejected a doctrine who quotes a false prophet. Thanks for the history lesson, though. Good times!

lol...when Jesus was taking his message first to the Jews by his apostles and disciples, most of the people hearing that 'new' message said the same thing as you, they rejected a doctrine not of Moses or the prophets who was promoted by a false Jewish prophet called Jesus of Nazareth. You're welcome :)

<quoted text>Also Joseph Smith is not Jesus. Hate to burst your bubble there, bub, but you're following the wrong guy.

Hate to burst you bubble there, bub, but people like you walked, talked, listened to and rejected the very God that put breath in their life. And you think you'd know the truth if it was presented to you? I doubt it.Tell me this. If you met a guy from a religion with twelve apostles and a prophet and he told you all sorts of strange stuff and than left to let you consider the information he shared with you. If another man over hearing the conversation sat down and told you the prophet had been arrested on several charges and was executed for them. Then told you how the head guy denied even knowing that prophet, that another accused the prophet of greed and sold him out to the authorities for a bag of silver and then killed himself. That the prophet had all sorts of women following him, attending to his needs and rumours were many that he was doing them, that when he died all those apostles did splits ville to save themselves from being found and killed, that the prophet supposedly rose from the dead and none of the apostles believed it, how interested would you be in such chaos?

Also, when you compare the kind of person Joseph Smith was, compared to the Apostles, you have to ask why God would use an unrepentant criminal who never changed his ways, and was continuing to lie to the very end.

Peter the closest to Jesus in faith as the NT claims denied even knowing him when his life was threatened.Peter was an attempted murder. He attacked a man not even hurting anyone. He was just detaining Jesus as a guard and what did Peter do? He pulled out a sword and aimed for his head to split it open like a chopped piece of wood. He missed of course and took off the man's ear.The fact that Peter carried a sword insinuates the other apostles and disciples also did. That means there are 'probably' more unknown stories of physical assaults on others by the apostles.Judas had a lust/love for the almighty coin. He loved it so much that his love/lust for it became greater than his appreciation for human life.Judas even complained to Jesus himself of using collected items on himself instead of the poor.It's a fact Jesus had a female following. They were there at his death and at his resurrection. You can bet there were plenty of rumours by the locals who didn't like Jesus.Than we have Doubting Thomas and his name explains it all.Than after being repeated told concerning his bodily resurrection, the apostles especially after his death wouldn't believe it. They even denied it happened. They were really irked that Jesus first appeared to a woman and not one of them! And they essentially called her a liar that she had seen and spoken to Jesus.Worse, the apostles faith was so weak that they all wanted "PROOF" that Jesus had indeed risen.And you speak of Smith being a criminal and unrepentant in comparison to the type of faithless losers Jesus choose for apostles? Why am I not surprised...lol :)

<quoted text>I don't ever remember any stories of Jesus trying to marry the Apostles wives while they were preaching his gospel. Smith is no Jesus.

I didn't read any stories like that either. But Jews by law in the time of Jesus could marry five wives. So what Jesus did or didn't do regarding matrimonial relationships, it's still in the earth or possibly on one of the five miles of shelves in the Vatican archives.Either way, I think God would follow his own laws as he commanded us to follow them, including commandments for relationships, it just makes sense. He factually had a bevy of women followers and it obviously disturbed Judas. If Jesus was so anti-marital relationship as many like you believe he was, don't you think instead of it being an opinion of Paul, Paul would have stated the Lord commanded that those weak to the flesh should marry but it was better to be faithful and single? Don't you think Jesus would have made sure all his disciples were single or divorced with no wish to remarry for his church offices? If Jesus was so against marriage don't you think it would have been written to be a bishop or deacon one must be single and never married?The RCC fathers that set forth what was in the NT, they made sure marriage was not an important item except in two cases. They made sure polygamy was never mentioned in a single verse after it's existence in Jewish writings for 4000 years. They made sure not to include 'marriage stories' as are contained through out the OT.The first 50 'popes' were all single and unmarried. The bishops and cardinals of high positions remained unmarried. Lower 'unimportant' clergy could get away with being 'faithless' and married or 'weak to the flesh' if divorced. But for the first fifty popes, the RCC made an 'unwritten' rule that it was best to be single and to avoid marriage.Than with the 51st pope there came a change with the church's view on marriage and it's clergy. It like did a 180 degree turn. Suddenly 'mortal' marriage became one of the holy sacraments, the fifth I believe. And it wasn't released as church doctrine till the 12th century.What does that mean? It means anything that may have existed concerning Jesus and marriage has been destroyed by the early RCC fathers or hasn't been discovered from the earth yet.As I told you, I don't like to make a sound judgement if facts don't exist for it to be a fact :)

<quoted text>They did read the Bible, and in it Jesus said those who've seen him, have seen the Father. It also says there is only one God.

That leaves you to explain some things that need logical answers as you think it's logical that there was just one God with three personages/personalities.Jesus said there was only one God the Father. Jesus said there was one greater than himself. How can Jesus be greater than himself if he is God the Father? Hmm? God is God according to you and a single being. There fore it would be a lie for God to claim another part of himself was more powerful than the sum of his self as being a single being. Than we have what we call purposeful deceit. While being baptised in the river Jordan by John and upon his coming up out of the water, according to your one God belief, God wanted those there to witness his baptism, including his cousin, to believe that God was a voice from heaven, a bird descending and Jesus stating a loud and for some joking purpose, this is me in whom I am well pleased.Me thinks your one God belief has a lot of problems.

<quoted text>They did read the Bible, and in it Jesus said those who've seen him, have seen the Father. It also says there is only one God.

Oh, I forgot one of the best lies he stated according to your one God belief. That was when he rose from the dead and when Mary saw him and wanted to touch him, God said she couldn't touch him because he hadn't risen to see himself yet. That was a great one liner lol.

<quoted text>You are the last person to be talking about judging anything or anyone. The same for the LDS church.

I didn't judge him. Smurf like you leaves anyone open to repeating what it is you do. No one has to judge to repeat what one actually has done.Smurf has judged many people of many religions in these threads. That's a fact. So when he claims he hasn't he has made himself his own liar, not I.

<quoted text>I think what most people want is for the LDS church to take responsibility for what happened. Mormons still make excuses today blaming everything and everybody but the church. The LDS church is responsible for what happen because of what the leaders were preaching at the time. If you don't know much about the Mormon reformation of the 1850's, you should look into it.The Catholic church has offered apologies for the Spanish inquisition, and the Southern Baptist church has offered apologies for their racists teachings in the beginning, supporting slavery. But the Mormon church won't take responsibility for anything.

That's like saying Americans today want the Japanese people of today to offer an official apology for pearl Harbour. I saw a special just lately. A tv crew was recording the experiences of a world war two vet that fought the Japanese. At one point the reporter asked the vet if he still hated the Japanese for the war they brought to America. He gave the reporter a puzzled look and said, "Why would I hate a people that had no involvement in that war?" Here's the facts.It's an opinion without any facts that Young commanded the massacre.It's a fact that Mormons of the Cedar City area did plan and carry out the MM massacre.It's a fact that when Young found out what happened, he did his best to hide the facts that his own elders had committed the massacre.It's a fact the hearing was a joke and the trials for the guilty were jokes.If Young is guilty of anything it's being an accessory to murder after the fact. But Peter attempted murder on an innocent man so not a lot to speak of there.The Mormon church offered what it believed it should offer by way of an apology to an incident that no one for over a century had anything to do with.Personally, I think living people demanding apologies from other living people for things they never did is about as looney tunes as any one can get be it a person or an organization. Have native Indians apologized for the wagon train massacres their ancestors committed? Have native Americans apologized for the Custer massacre? How many Americans today print apologies in newspapers for the enslavement of American natives and blacks?Where do we take this apology thing to? When do you quit with it? As Jesus said, let the dead bury the dead and I'll add, let the dead forgive the dead.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.